Stripersonfly, I really think you are mistaken when you imply that kids who don't have imeadiate family to teach them are unsafe with firearms.

I am the only person in my family with guns. I'm perfectly safe with them. My brother on the other hand should not own a firearm IMO. It aint just his ignorance about guns and gun safety either. He just does not have the temper for it.

But, you cannot legitimately punish people for a crime that has yet to be committed.

_________________"A system of morality based on relative emotional values is a mere illusion, a thoroughly vulgar conception which has nothing sound and nothing true in it."- Socrates

'knowledge is a deadly friend when no one sets the rules' - king crimson

For those of you who have written 'tongue in cheek' about their experiments leaving their guns out, and no one has gotten harmed in 10 years. First of all, I am not sure what the point is. I do not think guns will spontaneously hurt someone, and I am not arguing that. I do think that guns in inexperienced hands can hurt someone. I do not think it is onerous or 'punishment' to ask people to get some training on how to use firearms. I do not think it is any sort of infringement on their right. But still, to reply, here is an article that says these types of 'experiments' do not always result in such peaceful endings. In 2015, 265 such 'experiments' where the gun owner did not touch his gun, but someone still ended up hurt or worse occurred.

Stripersonfly, I really think you are mistaken when you imply that kids who don't have imeadiate family to teach them are unsafe with firearms.

Oldthompson,

I understand your point, and realize I am making a generalization that is not fair to everyone, but you are helping me make my point. It is more because of people like your brother that I feel everyone ought to get training. We currently do not possess a good way for a gun shop owner to know if they are selling a gun to a responsible grown up or an idiot. Nor do I want to put them in that position.

Once again though stripersonfly, "guns in inexperience hands" equates to "accidental shootings"

Accidental shooting are FEWER in number, annually, today, right now, than they have EVER been in the amount of time such statistics have been compiled in this country.

There is no way to proclaim that gun ownership is not higher than it has ever been in this country. 310 million guns, among 306 million people(2009).114 million handguns, 110 million rifles, 86 million shotguns.

Over 120 children 15 years old or younger were killed in gun accidents in 1998.[137] Accidental injuries are most common in homes where guns are kept for self-defense. The injuries are self-inflicted in half of the cases.On January 16, 2013, President Obama issued 23 Executive Orders on Gun Safety, one of which was for the Center for Disease Control (CDC) to research causes and possible prevention of gun violence. The five main areas of focus were gun violence, risk factors, prevention/intervention, gun safety and how media and violent video games influence the public. They also researched the area of accidental firearm deaths. According to this study (which was immediately buried not to see the light of day until just recently) not only have the number of accidental firearm deaths been on the decline over the past century but they now account for less than 1% of all unintentional deaths, half of which are self-inflicted.

Yes, "inexperience" is a root cause of accidents, but those accidents are fewer today than ever before, so those "inexperienced" are not a major problem (less than 1% of ALL accidental deaths).

How about we try addressing those other 99% of Accidental Deaths instead of punishing me for not harming anyone?

_________________I don't always venture out into the sub-freezing darkness, but when I do, it is hunting season, and I carry a Browning. Stay hungry my friends.

Old Stuffer, I agree with what you have written. My posting of that article was not to proclaim there is a huge rise in accidental shooting deaths, but instead was to push back on the 'experiment' comments about guns left in a 'safe' place by there owners never cause a problem. In fact, they can cause a problem.

Again, I do not see asking a prospective gun owner to get training, or demonstrate they are knowledgeable in fire use and firearm safety as 'punishment' or an infringement of their rights. Contrary to what Randy had written earlier, the right to keep and bear arms is not a right we are born with. Instead it is a right that is provided to us by our constitution, and in fact in many places it is a right, just like our right to vote, that you are not able to exercise until you are a certain age.

Why does the constitution mandate a certain age for voting, or to hold certain offices. It was to ensure that prior to coming into these rights, a person had enough life experiences to hopefully develop the knowledge and wisdom to exercise these rights with respect and prudence. I feel the same sort of approach should be applied to the second amendment.

Just for the sake of discussion, let's give the Gun Banners the AR, and the Bump Stock, and anything that "makes a gun shoot faster" (all the binary triggers, electronic triggers, AND Jerry Miculik's Finger),Where exactly does that alter the "accidental shootings by children"?

Not one worthwhile bit.

The huge vast majority of "accidental" shootings are done with Handguns, not long guns. That includes the people who Dick Cheney someone, or some idiot deer hunter who shoots at a deer atop a hill (sky for a backstop), MISSES, and hits a guy driving his truck down a country road a mile or 2 away (yep, been done).

In order to make any reasonable impact on 'accidental' shootings, you have to impact handguns, not AR's.

"Accidental shootings"...............how does a magazine that holds 10 rounds, or 15, 20, or 30, of ANY importance to "accidental" shootings.A lot of the "accidents" happen with no magazine in the handgun (yet the chamber had a live one in it), so even "0-round magazines" will not stop Accidental Shootings".

Age, yes,, let's go there...

So,, obviously 18 yrs old is no longer a fully-righted "adult" in this country.Yet they are allowed to join the military, use real actual machine guns and explosives, and DIE for the country that limits their rights.They are allowed to vote too (and usually do for leftists).Let's go with "when they reach maturity" then.

Quote:

A 2013 study published in Cerebral Cortex offers a scientific explanation behind the common notion that men take longer to "act their age" than women do. According to the study, it's rooted in the fact that the female brain establishes connections and "prunes" itself faster than the male brain.

"It seems that the process starts a few years after birth and continues to occur until around 40 years old," co-author Sol Lim, a graduate student at Newcastle University in the United Kingdom, told Mic.

So,, according to that study, people's brains aren't "mature" until around 40.

Quote:

Men grow up at 43 - 11 years later than women

OK,, so, no voting, no military, and no gun rights until 43 (32 for women) (but by all means they have Free Speech Rights against the government, and all the other amendments to the Bill Of Rights,,, except the 2nd).

How old was the Professional Gambler who shot up the concert venue in Vegas last year???????

What "governmental offices" does the Constitution actually put an age on as a requirement?I am only aware of ONE. The Presidency (and by further court rulings over the last 200 years the Vice Presidency) but the Constitution itself says nothing about the age of the VP.

Any other office anyone 18 yrs old or older can hold.

Some states (and cities) have candidacy age laws, but if I have missed all the Federal ones please enlighten me.I found 2 others I was unaware of, Senator (30) Representative (25).

So, since you can't be a House Member until 25, should THAT be the age you get Gun Rights, or 30, or 35?Plaxico Burres was 30 when he Glocked himself in NY (in fact, with ah illegal firearm carried illegally as well)Apparently 30 is too young.

In 2007 there were 54 children under 13 killed by accidental shootings.In 2007, 999 children drowned.In 2007 the total of gun-related deaths up through age 19 was 137.There are 30X more guns in private hands than pools, yet pool drownings outnumber gun deaths almost 100:1 and for children under 5, 500:1.Nobody is banning swimming pools, or cars.

Once again, those "accidents" are almost entirely the realm of SHORT guns, not long ones.But people want to ban AR15's, and some people are more than happy to give in to them.Those handgun "accidents" are now almost entirely again, the Modern Striker Fired High Capacity Pistol (with the trigger dingus).If you want to make an impact on 'accidental' shootings, you get rid of the MSFHCP.Yet, people are willing to give them the AR15.Yet I will also oppose the banning of the Glock and all it's Clones (the Smith & Glockon, the Glockfield, the Glockus, the Heckler & Glock, Glocketta, Glock Saur, is Colt the only maker without a MSFHCP with trigger dingus?), and I am also no fanboy of the MSFHCP.

_________________I don't always venture out into the sub-freezing darkness, but when I do, it is hunting season, and I carry a Browning. Stay hungry my friends.

Guns were ALLOWED in schools until the elder Bush's 1990 GFSZ law was signed making schools Free Fire Zones.

I say that to be clear, prior to Charles Whitman the ONLY death of more than 2 people at a school was 5, and that was faculty/administration at the hands of a member of faculty due to grievances. 1940.

Charles Whitman, 1966. 17 dead.

Nov. 66, a guy who admired Speck and Whitman, at a beauty college. 5 dead

March 2005, Red Lake Minnesota, 10 killed including the school security guard

April 2007, Va. Tech, 33 dead.

Feb. 2008, Baton Rouge La, 3 dead.

Feb. 2008, Northern Dekalb Ill, 6 dead.

Feb. 2012, Chardon High School, 3 dead.

April 2012, Oikos Univ, Oakland, 7

Dec. 2012, Sandy Hook, 28 dead.

Jan. 2013 Hazard Ky, 3 dead.

June 2013 Santa Monica, 6

October 2014, Marrysville Pilchuck High, 5 dead.

Oct. 2015, Umpqua Comm. College, 10 dead.

February 2018, Parkland, 17 dead.

I ignored the Enoch Brown school massacre, because it was 1764 and was perpetrated by the Delaware tribe.

So,, 42 dead in Mass Shootings (3 people or more) before the GFSZ law.128 killed after the GFSZ law.

Now, let's look at ALL of them.

19th century (began 1840's)31 people killed in School Shootings in 60 yrs.

20th century prior to Charles Whitman74 in the 66 yrs prior to Charles Whitman, including any "mass" ones listed above.

Post Charles Whitman to the GFSZ law, 34 years:120 in those years until 1990.Why so many? Guns were not uncommon in schools prior to 1966.

89 more to round out JUST the decade closing the 20th Century, POST GFSZ law.Wasn't that supposed to STOP these shootings?

107 deaths in schools from School Shootings just in the 2000's alone.

Add 56 between 2010 and Parkland.

Add 7 more SINCE Parkland.

105 people killed in School Shootings before Chuck Whitman took out 17 people, in almost 200 years.120 killed JUST from Whitman until Schools became Gun Free89 killed in just 10 yrs after schools became Gun Free170 SO FAR in the 21st Century.

What has been the big change?

Guns have always been around, they have always been available, why is it that since the mid 1960's these shootings are so common anymore?

_________________I don't always venture out into the sub-freezing darkness, but when I do, it is hunting season, and I carry a Browning. Stay hungry my friends.

In regards to your question about age limit for government offices, the constitution imposes and age limit for President at 35 years, Senators are 30 years of age, House of Representatives at 25 years of age. 18 to vote.

You cover a lot of ground in your post but a few items I wanted to touch on.

1 - I do not support gun bans or magazine bans. 2 - I am not a fan of gun free zones3 - I do not want to stop anyone's from participating in their right to possess a firearm (except as I had mention, felons and individuals with mental health issues where they present a danger to themselves and/or others)4 - There is no wrong type of firearm. From pistols to AR's to bespoke SxS shotguns, they are all fine in my opinion. 5 - I do not want waiting periods, or onerous background checks. We have the technology to make this happen6 - Someone wants to gut a gun license and the do not have any of the concerns I have mentioned, they should get some training and get one, guaranteed.

In answer to your question about what has changed to cause many of the issues we are seeing, well a lot has changed. A couple of items that have struck me include:1 - Political correctness run amuck. Many parents no longer control their kids correctly, punishment for crimes have been reduced, rights mental patients being pushed to an extremes. All of these are well intentioned, but the unforeseen repercussions were not anticipated2 - Between video games and movies there is a glorification of violence that has caused are children to become somewhat immune to it.

Rights are something you are born with. That is why they are considered natural and unalienable. Our rights are not granted by the Constitution, they are only enumerated by it. You have not posted anything new or groundbreaking in the way of ideas to solve the gun “problems” in this country. Many other countries have tried all these liberal ideas and more. In many cases those stricter policies on guns have made things much worse. You’re way behind the curve on this.

Guns were ALLOWED in schools until the elder Bush's 1990 GFSZ law was signed making schools Free Fire Zones.

I say that to be clear, prior to Charles Whitman the ONLY death of more than 2 people at a school was 5, and that was faculty/administration at the hands of a member of faculty due to grievances. 1940.

Charles Whitman, 1966. 17 dead.

Nov. 66, a guy who admired Speck and Whitman, at a beauty college. 5 dead

March 2005, Red Lake Minnesota, 10 killed including the school security guard

April 2007, Va. Tech, 33 dead.

Feb. 2008, Baton Rouge La, 3 dead.

Feb. 2008, Northern Dekalb Ill, 6 dead.

Feb. 2012, Chardon High School, 3 dead.

April 2012, Oikos Univ, Oakland, 7

Dec. 2012, Sandy Hook, 28 dead.

Jan. 2013 Hazard Ky, 3 dead.

June 2013 Santa Monica, 6

October 2014, Marrysville Pilchuck High, 5 dead.

Oct. 2015, Umpqua Comm. College, 10 dead.

February 2018, Parkland, 17 dead.

I ignored the Enoch Brown school massacre, because it was 1764 and was perpetrated by the Delaware tribe.

So,, 42 dead in Mass Shootings (3 people or more) before the GFSZ law.128 killed after the GFSZ law.

Now, let's look at ALL of them.

19th century (began 1840's)31 people killed in School Shootings in 60 yrs.

20th century prior to Charles Whitman74 in the 66 yrs prior to Charles Whitman, including any "mass" ones listed above.

Post Charles Whitman to the GFSZ law, 34 years:120 in those years until 1990.Why so many? Guns were not uncommon in schools prior to 1966.

89 more to round out JUST the decade closing the 20th Century, POST GFSZ law.Wasn't that supposed to STOP these shootings?

107 deaths in schools from School Shootings just in the 2000's alone.

Add 56 between 2010 and Parkland.

Add 7 more SINCE Parkland.

105 people killed in School Shootings before Chuck Whitman took out 17 people, in almost 200 years.120 killed JUST from Whitman until Schools became Gun Free89 killed in just 10 yrs after schools became Gun Free170 SO FAR in the 21st Century.

What has been the big change?

Guns have always been around, they have always been available, why is it that since the mid 1960's these shootings are so common anymore?

And not one single gun has ever killed anyone.

_________________Jim

(Warning: To those that read my posts.)I don't shoot registered targets so what could I possibly know or have to offer?

Parkland, they had what, 39 opportunities to deal with a nasty punk who, at one point, had his mother on her knees with a gun to her head saying he was going to kill her.Same threat to his brother too apparently.

Quote:

A family friend says that Parkland shooter Nikolas Cruz's mother told her that Nikolas had put a gun to her head.

Quote:

During a different incident, Deschamps reported that Cruz had threatened her son Rock with a shotgun. In the 911 call, she revealed that Cruz had put guns to the head of his brother and mother.

“He put the gun to the head of his brother before. This is not the first time, and he did that to his mom, and his mom died. It is not the first time that he put a gun on somebody’s head,” she told dispatchers.

IGNORED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Not 39 times over a span of even 20 years though,,, but SEVEN years, that's essentially every other month.

IGNORED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Of course,, if my 12-yr-old attacks me with a vacuum cleaner hose, even with his 13-yr old brother's help, I won't be crying to the cops.I'll be getting me some BUTTS! (Top Gun ref).But then, in Oz here, our LEO don't get into stupid shenanigans over imagined racism in school-aged crimes and sit around ignoring crimes done by students.Around here, when the school wanted him locked up, when the school board wanted him locked up, when the worthless SRO EVEN wanted him locked up, when everybody with a pulse and a half a functioning thought process could see a psychopath who was a time bomb, WE'D have locked him up.None of Miami-Dade and Coward County "P.R.O.M.I.S.E." programs around here.

_________________I don't always venture out into the sub-freezing darkness, but when I do, it is hunting season, and I carry a Browning. Stay hungry my friends.

its such a joke. WE are told to report suspicious people and suspicious activity as a first line of defense against potential mass shootings and all of it goes into a black hole. It all goes back to the basic law of the jungle: You are on your own. Defend yourself because you can't depend on somebody else.

Guns have always been around, they have always been available, why is it that since the mid 1960's these shootings are so common anymore?

It is selective outrage, as if one human life is more valuable than others. School shootings are not at all common. Consider that using statistics from the Chicago Police Department, the Chicago Tribune and the Chicago Sun-Times, which track homicides, The Observatory determined 3,691 murders occurred within Chicago city limits during that time frame of seven years and eight months.

Just Chicago, during the Obama term alone, close to 4000 murders. Though the rant is the "170 SO FAR in the 21st Century," good grief . . . that's all 550 states, and in just one city over 8 years, 4,000.

I haven't posted here in a while. I have a lot to say This is long, so if you have something else to do, consider skipping it

The essential point of any argument involving guns and gun control distills down to Liberty - we are a Free people by definition. More free than any other. The focus of our great experiment has, up until recently, always been on the rights of the individual. The individual matters. Every individual matters. Their individual rights matter. As such, every individual has a RIGHT to defend their own life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. That simple concept has considerable gravity. It is what defines us, or at least did define us, as a nation. But there is risk, and the only thing that mitigates that risk is a strong moral fiber. The risk of ultimate consequence. Like it or not, the country was founded on Judeo-Christian principles. The idea that there is a higher power, and that they are watching. Judging. And we need to be judged, because without judgement there is no consequence to actions. It becomes difficult to discern right from wrong. You don't need religion to live a well governed life, but without it a moral fibre becomes more difficult to define. Progressivism achieves the exact opposite of it's intent - it tears at this fabric - it divides. It creates animosity among smaller groups of people. It is intolerant. It is fundamentally incompatible with the Constitution, Individual Liberty, and what makes this country work.

Where am I going with this? What does any of this have to do with gun control?

No one wants to addresses the root of the problem because it's too uncomfortable to confront. It's a philosophical problem. The nature of the weapon is ultimately irrelevant - it's the nature of the individual that must be addressed. That's complicated; it involves offending people; challenging them. It involves having the courage to differentiate between right and wrong, good and evil, and the will to call it out. People get scared - most today can't fathom a world in which they must protect and defend themselves. Naturally they look to the only authority figure they still respect for a solution - the government. Government sees no other option but to control us - because it CAN'T protect us, and society has lost the ability to effectively control itself. Gun control (or any weapons/tools control) is not about safety; it's about power and control. It is appropriately named - there's a reason politicians aren't clamoring for gun SAFETY. Nothing they implement will make people safer, but it will enable more control. The danger merely shifts to something more insidious.

The UK is have serious discussions on knife control. Not just tactical knives. Not just hunting knives. All knives. Pocket knives. Kitchen knives. Stores are pulling them off the shelves in the name of making their communities safer. Of course, all they've really done is put people more at risk, and made them more dependent on government services and intervention. Are we to expect the UK to be relegated to a diet of pudding and other assorted, pre-softened foods? Who manages that mandate? Am I exaggerating to make a point? A little, but not as much as you might think. We're talking about pre-Bronze-age, cave-man technology. A stabbing implement can be fashioned out of any shard of metal or plastic. Even a tree branch can be crafted into a deadly implement with no more than a couple of rocks and a bit of patience. What other tools will be considered to dangerous to own and use?

England has essentially stated, on the record, the a subjects life, and his or her defense of it, is intrinsically equal to a criminals life, and his or her desire to endanger/take it - even at the time of the crime. It's collectivism. The worst kind. It minimizes the individual. It's what Socialism IS. Everything is done for the good of the state. If banning tools of any sort pleases the collective in some way, then it will be done regardless of any of any harm that might befall potential victims. Government imposes limits on people; people do not impose limits on government. That is, as educated people understand, the nature of our Constitution in a nutshell. The essence of our society. But you can not have a Free society without responsibility. Without morals. Without courage. Without risk. And some pain.

And that's what's broken. And no amount of tool control will fix it; it simply accelerates the race to the bottom of humanity.

_________________-----------------------------------------IMO, shooting registered targets at the club is like eating a "registered cheeseburger". It's the same cheeseburger, but you pay more for it and everyone knows you ate it...

It is in Alfie's best interest to travel to Italy, where doctors are ready to care for him, the legal team argued in court.

"We're still holding out hope because Alfie continues to fight," said Kiska. Since the toddler has been "denied nutrition" for more than 24 hours, he said, "we're going against the clock."

It is the most basic, and sinister form of government over-reach and control. The entire discussion is not about guns, it is about control. Pathetically, it is not about violent crime control, that one is simple: better law enforcement, a more efficient court system, more prisons if needed for those that commit violent crime and after due process, appropriate and swift punishment.

Rather than the pro-gun or anti-gun trash talk, it is far more simple. It is a matter of civil liberties. No portion of the Bill of Rights is any more important than the other. It isn't reasonable, it isn't logical to claim that you want freedom of speech, freedom of expression, freedom of religion, freedom to peaceable assemble and protest, while allowing the government to punish, restrict, tax, harass, and infringe on the most basic of unalienable rights: the right to protect self and others.

Those who commit violent crimes deserve consequences, the innocent that do not commit crimes should never, ever be punished or stripped of their fundamental rights.

Today, more than ever before, the government has the tools for investigation like never before. After probable cause, search and seizure was one thing 200 years ago, 100 years ago, 25 years ago . . . and quite another today. The Fury of the Constitution cries out that no life is superior to another and no civil liberty can be a second or third-rate liberty. If you need permission or a permit from government to do it, it cannot be considered a right at all.